Leong Sze Hian /

It was 8 p.m. on a Thursday night when our first couple came for financial counseling.

Mr Lim (not his real name) is a 47-year-old taxi driver and a bankrupt. Mrs Lim is an accounts executive. They have three children  – two are in school and one is in National Service.

They have obtained permission from the Official Assignee to sell their Executive Condo (EC), so that they can try to clear their debts and buy a resale HDB flat. However, HDB sent them a letter, dated 1 June, rejecting their appeal through their Member of Parliament (MP) for a HDB Concessionary Loan.

Over the last few months, they have appealed a few times directly to the HDB and also through their MP.

EC owners not eligible

The HDB letter of rejection states that:

“… applicants who wish to apply for a second HDB concessionary loan must meet all the eligibility requirements, one of which is that they must not own/have an interest in any private property, including Executive Condominium (EC).

You are currently owning an EC. Hence, your household is not eligible for a second HDB concessionary loan.

From the documents submitted, we gathered that you are selling your EC at $954,000. After deducting the outstanding loan of $276,000, your wife and you are expected to receive CPF refunds of about $431,000 and cash proceeds of about $213,000. You have informed that you use about $106,000 to discharge from bankruptcy, $70,000 to settle your wife’s debts and the rest for your children’s university fees.

Your wife and you may wish to use your combined CPF refunds and available cash savings to outright purchase an affordable flat, before using the balance to settle your debts.”

Facing bankruptcy and homelessness

As Mr and Mrs Lim have been trying to explain to the HDB in their appeals, it is the Official Assignee’s requirement when permission was given to sell their EC that the cash proceeds must be used to discharge his bankruptcy debts, and that his wife’s debts must be cleared because she may be made bankrupt too and thus not be able to purchase a resale flat. Their combined net income is already insufficient to pay for their EC mortgage monthly repayments and the minimum monthly repayments on Mrs Lim’s credit card debts, as well as the cash-over-valuation for a resale flat.

Mrs Lim’s credit card debts of over $70,000 were primarily incurred to keep their home for the last seven years, which has a monthly mortgage of over $2,000. They won’t have this problem, if theirs is a HDB flat, as HDB flat sales proceeds are protected from creditors.

Since some EC owners may in a sense have been forced by HDB to buy, because they exceeded the Income Ceiling of $8,000 for HDB flats, why are they being discriminated as never ever needing a second HDB concessionary loan like Mr and Mrs Lim?

How can the HDB assume that all EC owners can get a bank loan?

Singaporeans who are undischarged or discharged bankrupts, have adverse Consumer Credit Bureau credit records, have been sued in their lifetime for a debt, loan quantum less than $100,000, etc, are typically denied housing loans by banks.

This leaves them short of about $30,000 to $50,000 (depending on the resale flat’s COV), which they are asking the HDB to lend to them as a second HDB concessionary loan, because no bank will lend them a housing loan as the husband is a bankrupt.

Second concessionary loan eligibility?

As we try to explain the HDB’s new second concessionary loan eligibility requirements which were changed last year to allow downgraders to be eligible, but at the same time imposed more stringent eligibility requirements such as that half of the cash proceeds from the previous flat’s sale must be utilised for the resale flat, Mrs Lim broke down and kept saying she cannot understand why they have $431,000 of CPF but yet they can’t buy a resale flat, because of HDB’s policies.

We tried to console her by saying that as there is now a new National Development Minister, who has been saying almost every other day that he will look into the HDB’s policies and help Singaporeans who may be suffering from their HDB housing problems, that hopefully the policies which affect Singaporeans like them may be reviewed soon.

Homeless soon?

Although we all put up a brave face and tried to console Mrs Lim that the new Minister may look into issues like theirs soon – we knew deep down in our hearts that they may be homeless, by the middle of next month, as they had already signed the documents to sell their EC following the Official Assignees’ approval.

Alex Lew, Lee Mei Wei, Ko Siew Huey and Leong Sze Hian provide free financial counseling every Thursday from 8 – 10 pm., at Block 108, Potong Pasir Ave 1.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

【诽谤诉讼】林鼎指责总理不敢起诉弟妹 质问谁让已故李光耀相信故居将被保留?

李显龙总理起诉本社总编许渊臣诽谤案,控辩双方在大年初四(本月15日)进行口头辩论。 只因一篇文章中,复述了总理弟妹李玮玲和李显扬的指控,总理李显龙提告本社总编许渊臣诽谤。诉讼在去年11月30日进行,一直持续到12月3日。在昨日法官聆听诉辩双方结束陈词,将给予两周时间提呈补充资料,并保留裁决。 许渊臣的代表律师是林鼎,昨日在庭上质问控方,若不是总理李显龙提及,又是谁让已故建国总理李光耀,相信欧思礼38号故居可能被宪报保留为古迹? “如果不是总理,又会是谁让他(李光耀)产生这个印象?(故居将保留)?” 林鼎昨日在庭上分析,这绝不是李显扬和李玮玲会这么告知父亲,因为他们都支持拆除故居;即便李光耀生前的私人律师柯金梨也不会,因为她坦言曾两度查找欧思礼路38号故居,是否已被宪报为古迹。 林鼎也再次提及去年审讯时抛出的疑点,是否总理与夫人有意迁入故居(去年总理曾在庭上强调,若故居被保留的一些考量,包括出租,或自己先住上一段时间,直到其敏感性降低,或房子被拆除)。 林鼎也再次指责总理“没有勇气”提控自己的弟妹,因为弟妹们拥有他不愿在庭上被公开揭露的文件。 他认为,对许渊臣的诉讼,就像总理对时评人梁实轩的官司一样,是一场“代理官司”(surrogate litigation);也抨击总理发起的官司浪费时间,且毫无必要。 他指出,涉案文章仅仅是复述了总理弟妹早前已公开的指控,也无证据能说明, 总理为此蒙受损失。但文达星则重提,总理早前接受盘问时,已表达本身的信任、信誉和尊重蒙受损失。 更何况,网友们的讨论,多围绕在何晶在社交媒体转发帖文的行为,和具诽谤性内容毫无关系。…

A National Day video by TOC

TOC’s own National Day video – “The Five Stars Of Our Flag” – with an original song by Blackstar.

French Minister of the Armed Forces to attend the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore this weekend

Florence Parly, Minister of the Armed Forces, will be in Singapore tomorrow…

Inevitable change in Singapore's political landscape

By Robin Tan I refer to the article, “Prepare for a political…